Creation Science. Oxymoron?

Is Creation Science an oxymoron? It depends on how you look at it. I would say, that in one sense it absolutely is. But if looked at another way, perhaps not.

Think about it. How “scientific” is it really that a Creator God simply spoke the universe and our world into existence? How scientific of him was it to create all plant life a day before creating the sun? Or creating light before the sun, stars, and moon? How scientific is that? Given all that we “know” through science, (and we know so much don’t we?), couldn’t God have made it just a bit more logical and scientific in all his creating?

Let’s face it, God seems to be flaunting just how “out of the realm of science” the act creation really is, and how out of the realm of science God himself is.

Perhaps it would seem more “scientific” to believe in the big bang and 13.75 billion years to explain all we see today, rather than to believe that God created it by just speaking it into existence.

I know that to accept the creation account as true is a huge worldview paradigm shift and a huge leap of faith. It certainly seems unscientific. Doesn’t it?

A Believers Responsibility to Believe

I confess I believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture. I believe in a literal six days Creation (around 6000 years ago), and a worldwide flood (4300 years ago). I believe these things because Jesus did and Scripture (which Jesus verified as absolutely and very literally trustworthy) makes these things clear.

Why should we believe Jesus or the word of God? Short answer: Because Jesus has been proven to be the Son of God and the Messiah, having fulfilled over 300 prophecies, lived a sinless life, worked miracles (all of which went unquestioned – people could have verified the facts by interviewing eyewitnesses), and finally the clincher – he rose from the dead.

Jesus believed in creation:
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’” Matthew 19:4

He also believed in the flood:
‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all.’ Luke 17:26–27

To cling to a belief that Creation or the Flood is not true is to say that Jesus was a liar.

If we are believers in God, and the truth of his holy Scriptures, then we don’t have the luxury of just believing whatever we want, do we? We don’t have the luxury of only believing the empirical evidence that only science can deliver (Empirical is defined as: “originating in or based on observation or experience.” Incidentally there is nothing empirical about the theory of evolution). This will never lead you to God in and of itself. We need revelation from God. Thankfully we have 66 books of revelation from God.

Are you a believer in Jesus Christ? Then, as “believers” we are obligated to believe what God reveals. Aren’t we? But why? And do we have to throw our brains in the trash to believe the Bible? Certainly not!

It can be proven that the creation story happened the way it is recorded in Scripture, but you must first accept that Jesus can be trusted. And why can he be trusted? Because he can be proven to be all that he says he was, the Messiah, Savior, and God in the flesh by his resurrection from the dead and appearance to more than 500 witnesses. Jesus can be trusted on the basis of the overwhelming evidence.

Is there room for doubt? The disciples to whom Jesus revealed himself after his resurrection doubted… at first. But they didn’t stay in doubt. We shouldn’t stay in doubt either about things that God has clearly revealed. Our confidence in God’s word is based on the resurrection of Christ.

I admit, the creation account isn’t quite as clear as we might want it to be. But should we trust science instead of God? It really is a matter of faith… and believing the evidence presented to us.

The Role of Science

Science is not the enemy. It is a system of thought whereby human creatures try to make sense of the Creators world. But don’t you agree that science can become such a part of your worldview it leaves no room for God? I imagine that those who put their faith in science would read about all these crazy miracles on nearly every page of the Bible and, simply by default, think it just couldn’t have happened. The Bible talks about a God speaking a world into existence, and a world wide flood with an ark filled with all the animals, and resurrection from the dead. Admittedly from a scientific viewpoint, this all begins to sound absurd! To those whose faith is science, those who believe in God and creation and a flood have lost all common sense.

Miracles sound absurd only to someone who doesn’t believe in God. We must choose: follow the religion of science, or follow the God revealed to us in Scriptures and actually believe what he says and put science in it’s proper place.

Some in the Christian faith have capitulated to the Darwinian brainwashed culture around them. After all, evolution is a widely believed and accepted fact. Right? Who wants to look stupid? Its easy to see how Christians started to give in and think that God must have just used evolution to “create” the world as we know it.

I know some Christians who say that the creation account is little more than just a myth, a story that simply has one point to make, God was behind it all. They say that Genesis doesn’t speak to areas of science at all. They say that the days of “creation” in Genesis chapter one must have meant eons of time and certainly not literal days. The problem with this thinking is that this isn’t what the word of God says.

Moses spells it out for us in Genesis, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day…the second day… etc…” Genesis 1:5

And the again in the Ten Commandments, “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God… For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Exodus 20: 8-11

So what do we do with that? The revealed word of God compels us to believe that which God reveals as true. If we are believers than we must believe this too… right?

Maybe Creation Science isn’t an oxymoron after all. Maybe it’s just a way to look at the world with an all powerful Creator God as the foundation for understanding the world… his creation. It means looking at history and science and conforming our entire worldview with the foundation that God is the Source of all that exists and that his word is true in every way. Yes, even in the realm of science – though even science must submit itself to this above-the-realm-of-science God (Just think about all the miracles of Christ and the prophets).

As I see it, this really becomes an issue regarding the authority and reliability of Scripture. As you may have deduced by now, I hold it in high regard. I believe that what we have in the Bible is the very word of God. We have completely accurate and trustworthy reconstructed original documents from Moses, the apostles and prophets, from which all the various translations have their basis. (Maybe I’ll write more on this in a future post). These Scriptures are the very words that God himself has led the authors of Scripture to write.

Peter writes: “Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding, or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.” (2 Peter 1:20-21 NLT)

Since Jesus authenticated all the various prophets, especially Moses who wrote the first five books of the Bible – including Genesis – the real issue becomes, can we trust Jesus? As already discussed, we indeed can and must for Jesus is God. The author of life and everything that’s ever existed or will exist.

But even just thinking through this practically, assuming we have the words of Moses in the first five books of the bible, can we trust Moses? Who was Moses?

Moses was a reluctant prophet, and aside from Christ, the most humble man who ever walked the planet. He was in the house of Pharaoh to the age of 40, no doubt tutored by the finest scholars of Egypt and well trained in all the sciences. He then spent the next 40 years in Midian, tending sheep and raising a family until one day God appeared to him in a burning bush and sent him to rescue the people of Israel.

By the time he started writing Scripture he was God’s best friend. They spoke face to face. He spent time in God’s presence on a regular basis. Everything he wrote about God, (including the creation story) he received first hand from God who was there to tell about it.

So would an educated man who is now God’s right hand man and his voice write a myth? Would he write a story that wasn’t absolutely true? Think about it.

I have thought long and hard about Creation and I must say, there are things about the Creation account that still baffle me. But with all my heart I believe what God says is true. Why? Did I check my brain at the door? No.

In my experience with the study of creation science, the information I have encountered takes the Bible seriously and literally as Jesus did, believing what Moses wrote and seeing the world as if Creation happened exactly the way it says it happened. It also takes into account that the flood happened exactly the way it says it happened. Why doubt the One who was there to tell about it?

I admit that believing in Creation science is not cool. You may be shunned and ridiculed by your friends. I once happened to see an episode of the Duggers, “19 kids and counting” on TLC (the only one I’ve seen, I promise!) when they went to a creation science exhibit in Kentucky. The producers of this episode mocked them and made them look really silly. The contributors to the wikipedia page also ridicule Creation Science and those “fundamentalists” trying to promulgate their “religion”.

If you were to do a search for creation science on Youtube, most all the comments on these videos are hate filled and spiteful. I was researching one well known creation science advocate and could hardly locate one of his videos among all the videos created by others to mock and ridicule him.

So people hate the Creator? What else is new? People have been hating God ever since he decided to create them.

But just because something isn’t cool, doesn’t mean it isn’t true… does it? Since when has following Jesus or believing in him ever been cool in the worlds eyes? So you must choose. Choosing to stay in doubt is also a choice.

ps. One of the things that have baffled me is that God created stars and galaxies with their billions-of-light-years-away light beams already visible on earth, even though these were said to be created on the 4th day of creation (Genesis 1:14-19) and yet the history of mankind (as revealed in the holy Scriptures) only allows for not more than 10,000 years since creation (genealogical records). What’s up with that?

I have had a few thoughts about this.

The easy answer: God made it that way. He created all the stars with their light beams already hitting earth. Yet another miracle. Chalk another one up for God.

The heavens and earth were created in Genesis 1:1 and then there was a very long time (13.75 billion years as the farthest visible galaxies would suggest) before he prepared the earth for humanity and creating the sun and moon and closest stars on day 4… but there are loads of scientific problems with this theory as well.

None of the above and it is absolutely foolish to scientifically evaluate the miracle of creation, just as it would be foolish to try to scientifically evaluate any of the thousands of miracles elsewhere in the Bible. They are miracles! Creation was a miracle people!

UPDATE: After much thought, it occurred to me that God’s first word in creation was, “Let there be light!” and light flooded the farthest reaches of the universe (which might well be infinite – ever thought about that?). All the paths of light from every star in every direction were laid out with those first words.

28 thoughts on “Creation Science. Oxymoron?”

This is not a useful blog, nor do you address any science issues. You have a presumption that there is a god and then weave a story around this belief.
Everything you say is based on a belief system, yours in particular. Either something is true or not and then there is the burden of proof. Where is it?
Gordon

Thanks Gordon. Yep I presume there is a God. In part because of the mountain of evidence surrounding Jesus in particular. In part because I have met him for myself and experience God daily. Science is a human invention to understand an ordered world. Ordered by God who supersedes science in every way.

Incidentally there is nothing empirical about the theory hypothesis of evolution

I don’t think “empirical” means what you think it means. Certainly “theory” and “hypothesis” don’t mean what you think they mean.

Evolution is solid theory. It has been observed in real time, in the wild, and interestingly enough, also in the laboratory. Especially the advent of molecular and genetic biology provides a magnificent amount of empirical data on exactly how evolution works.

In science, “theory” means something that is so solidly accurate that we use it to explain other phenomena; it’s superior to a law, it resides on facts, it provides us a framework against which to test hypotheses. As a hypothesis, evolution is solidly proven, in lay terms (in scientific terms, it survives tens of thousands of tests to disprove it annually).

I cannot imagine why you think God incapable of using scientifically-observed processes, nor why you think God would be false in providing evidence of things He did not do.

I would also encourage you to get a copy of Jonathan Weiner’s marvelous book, The Beak of the Finch, a story of evolution in our time. The book won the Pulitzer for general non-fiction in 1994 — so you know it’s a good read. It’s easy to read, it’s loaded with great discussion of evolution, and it tells a wonderful story about Peter and Rosemary Grant and their life-long project to observe what happens to species on desert islands in the Galapagos.

Thanks for the comment. Empirical means what I thought it meant and I have included a definition in the text. I was taught in high school that a Hypothesis was a guess which could not become a theory until “proven”. This was the sense I was using it, but the definitions of the word that I just looked up are very similar to each other, so I edited those comments out of my blog.

You are obviously wrong in the rest of your comments. Evolution (macro-evolution) is a far fetched religion and cannot possibly have any concrete scientific evidence. It was constructed not even 200 years ago to give people an excuse for their sin. If God doesn’t exist and didn’t create you, then you would not be responsible to him and you would have obligations to him on how you live your life, or face the dire consequences of failing to do so. The plain truth is that he does and he did and you do.

The golden test of “macro” evolution is speciation. It’s been observed a number of times. Empirically, evolution is as “proven” as anything can be.

We know a lot more about evolution theory and how it works, and how to manipulate it, that we know about gravity theory. Denying evolution is not much different than denying gravity, really — but we don’t consider evolution deniers as silly as gravity deniers.

You are mistaken to say that speciation (the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution) has been observed. I have no problems with the differences we find within species and everyone alive can see the difference between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua or between the dark skinned pygmies of Africa and paler Anglo Saxons (micro evolution within species).

Are you aware that the Bible accounts for all of history? On the authority of the word of God only about 6000 (possibly more) time has elapsed. This is calculated from very specific genealogies and confirmed history.

You have placed your confidence in something or someone other than God’s word.

Speciation has been observed in the wild, in the lab, and in domesticated plants and animals, a rather large number of times. Some of the more notable:

==> Peter and Rosemary Grant documented, with millions of data points, speciation occurring in birds in their three-decades+ longitudinal studies in the Galapagos. Their work is well documented in Jonathan Weiner’s book, The Beak of the Finch. You’d do well to stop fighting that and simply read the book. (Short notes on the book here; short version of their story from PBS.

==> Ring species demonstrate speciation clearly; among more famous examples, the lesser black-backed gull into the herring gull; and the California or San Fernando Valley salamanders, which demonstrate numerous examples of speciation over a rather large range; and the green warblers of the Himalayas.

==> In citrus fruits: Grapefruit appears to have arisen within the last 250 years; red grapefruit are entirely the product of a sport mutation — that is, spontaneous, unassisted by humans — in the 1940s. (So are navel oranges, which are seedless, but which make a poor example because of their seedlessness.)

==> In vegetables, most of what we see in the produce aisle comes from species that did not exist 200 years ago, and in many cases, not 100 years ago. Bananas are evolutionary products of crossbreeding to get the seeds to reduce dramatically; corn’s evolution is probably about 5,000 years old, but so well understood that experiments have been able to duplicate the leap from teosinte to maize that made corn possible. Since Jesus’s time the mustards He mentioned have been speciated into stuff ranging from broccoli through Brussels sprouts, and radishes.

==> Modern beef speciated from the aurochs about 1,000 years ago; sadly the aurochs was driven to extinction.

==> Apple maggots evolved from hawthorne maggots, but after Europeans introduced apples to the New World. Sometimes hybridization is possible between the two species, but generally they don’t, since their food plants seed out at different times.

Speciation of influenza viruses requires that we get new shots for the disease every year. Speciation of microbes is a constant problem in laboratories, and especially in hospitals. Speciation in fruit flies fills volumes of books.

No, I’m not aware the Bible accounts for all of history. For example, the Bible doesn’t account for the settling of Jericho, nor for the diversity of human migration out of Africa into Europe, Asia and the Americas. Nothing about America is accounted for in the Bible.

Jericho is 12,000 to 15,000 years old — we know, because we can date the various settlements at Tel Jericho using God’s clocks, atomic particles. In that period of time, Jericho has never been flooded as described in the Noah story. The Bible doesn’t even account for the entire history of the land it’s mostly set in.

You have placed your confidence in words of men, and not in God. Especially, you don’t trust God’s actual handiwork. Christians believe God does not lie, and consequently, what nature divulges must be accurate. Where God’s handiwork contradicts erroneous human texts, we should probably trust the hard evidence God left behind, don’t you think?

Hello Ed, I have to respectfully disagree with you once again. Think about all the examples you cite and tell me that these are examples of speciation (the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution). They are obviously not. These are examples of differences within a species over time. By design God has made all living things capable of adapting to their environments through “natural selection” (micro-evolution). Any thinking rational person would have no problem with this as examples abound. BUT, this is not macro-evolution or speciation (the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution).

You talk about finches becoming more efficient finches, citrus fruits becoming variations of citrus fruits, gulls becoming gulls, etc… Darwin falsely made the supposition that this extended all the way back to the origin of the species. God in his word, the Bible tells us all about the origin of the species back in Genesis 1 and about the great flood about 4500 years ago.

I have personally visited Jericho and seen the walls that fell and ate bananas from a roadside vendor. It was not rebuilt until the time of the Kings of Israel and at a personal loss to the builder:

“And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it” —Joshua 6:26

“In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun” —1 Kings 16:34

Hello Ed, I have to respectfully disagree with you once again. Think about all the examples you cite and tell me that these are examples of speciation (the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution).

Yes. Especially the Grants’ examples in the Galapagos. They are new species that, in several cases, meet the gold standard of not being able to interbreed with the other lines — that is especially true of the ring species. Herring gulls don’t breed with lesser black-backed gulls.

Each of these examples is the formation of a new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

They are obviously not.

Your studies in evolutionary biology took place where? Peter and Rosemary Grant have published probably three dozen papers on speciation.

It takes a particular kind of hubris to pronounce them wrong, when you haven’t even looked at the data, nor, I suspect, do you understand the processes and why they work.

One of the things that tells us creationism is unholy is the way it turns otherwise good Christians into paths of iniquity — making up whole cloth lies, like Ken Ham and some of his buddies, spreading gossip and rumors, developing haughtiness, or just denying God’s creation and God’s work. Don’t fall into that trap. Scripture warns us of creationists. As in Romans 1:

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

The creationist, faced with evidence God has placed in front of him, denies it. Evolution is clearly seen, but the creationist denies God could or would allow the world to function that way, and so turns away from God’s personal testament, and the Word of God.

Don’t go that way.

These are examples of differences within a species over time.

That’s pretty close to a definition of evolution. But look again at ring species. They are examples of speciation over distance or geographical barriers. We have the original line, and we have the new, speciated line, at the same time.

Evolution.

By design God has made all living things capable of adapting to their environments through “natural selection” (micro-evolution).

No, that’s not what natural selection is, and that’s not how it works. Through sex especially, but through reproduction, a population of living things takes on variations in genetics. Natural selection picks from among those varied individuals, and those individuals pass along their genetic heritage.

Sometimes, a population cannot adapt, and it goes extinct. No birds can adapt to DDT, for example — though mosquitoes can. Variation doesn’t overcome all obstacles.

Any thinking rational person would have no problem with this as examples abound. BUT, this is not macro-evolution or speciation (the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution).

What makes you say that? What is a species? The usual definition of speciation is when one population of a living thing “micro” evolves to the point that it can no longer interbreed with another population of that once same living thing. That has been observed, and each of the examples I gave is that type of “macro” evolution. There is no magic switch between “macro” and “micro” evolution (and in reality, I’ve never encountered any working scientist who uses those terms). We can see speciation only in retrospect, except with ring species. In the gulls, for example, we start out in the Baltic states with one of the species, the herring gull; they can hybridize with a neighbor population to the west, and in turn that population can hybridize with a population even farther west; but by the time we get back to western Europe in that ring, the gulls have gotten smaller, taken on different coloring, and are identified as the lesser black-backed gull. Those gulls do not, and sometimes cannot mate with the herring gulls. They live side-by-side, but they are now different species, by geographic separation.

Why do you deny the formation of new and distinct species as evolution? How can you ignore the facts?

You talk about finches becoming more efficient finches, citrus fruits becoming variations of citrus fruits, gulls becoming gulls, etc… Darwin falsely made the supposition that this extended all the way back to the origin of the species.

I said there had been speciation between the finches. I cannot imagine how one would measure “efficient,” but that’s not what has been observed. Your history is wrong, too. Darwin mad no supposition in the Galapagos. In fact, he took 13 specimens and shipped them to the British Museum. He got samples of seed eater, samples of insect eater, a specimen of an odd sort of woodpecker that used cactus quills instead of its beak; he got 13 very different species from 13 different islands.

The Galapagos woodpecker is, perhaps, the best example. Finches are seed eaters. They have seed crushing beaks, generally short and stout. Woodpeckers (and there are 217 species of woodpecker with astonishing variety in their genera) have longer beaks with which they peck holes in wood, generally to find insects to eat. Seed eaters and insect eaters with great differences in morphology, mating habits, diet, size, flight patterns, coloring, etc.

About two years after his five-year voyage, Darwin ran into the bird guy at the British Museum. This fellow told Darwin that they had carefully typed down the 13 birds, and each and every one of them was a finch. Most of them had developed non-finch characteristics so that even a veteran bird watcher would mistake the Galapagos woodpecker for a woodpecker — but it was, instead, a finch.

THAT was when Darwin go puzzled by the whole experience. Contrary to the best creationist science of the day (the last good creationist science), Darwin had found that archetypes rarely existed in the wild. Instead of a species all being slight variations on the archetype, he found great variations that often made it impossible to tell two birds were the same species — and here, he was confronted with complete changes in everything about the birds. The Galapagos woodpecker had nothing outward that made it look like a finch; only careful morphological study could determine that at the time (today we can use DNA). Creationism said that couldn’t happen — but here were clear examples of it happening, and Darwin had dozens more examples around the world.

Darwin found a bird in South Africa out on the veldt. No trees, just grasses and termite mounds. The bird used its beak to break into termite mounds and eat termites, though its feat and beak were not well adapted to that way of living. Turns out it’s a woodpecker, probably from a former forest in the same area or somehow translocated out of its boreal comfort zone. Still a woodpecker, still adapted for pecking trees, but no trees to peck on.

According to your hypothesis, if I understand it, you think those birds should have “adapted” to their new roles. We’ve got records on them for 300 years. They don’t have the genes to turn into wrens. The remain woodpeckers, and they await mutations that might make their termite pecking easier or more efficient.

Birds cannot evolve on command. Natural selection can only work with the genetic variation that actually exists.

I’ve given you clear examples of speciation. Anyone looking at a radish can tell it’s not broccoli — but you claim it’s just “adaptation” and that they are not separate species? Seriously?

Do you know what a radish is? Have you ever seen broccoli?

Don’t talk crazy.

God in his word, the Bible tells us all about the origin of the species back in Genesis 1 and about the great flood about 4500 years ago.

The Bible says nothing about speciation, really. It mentions several dozen animals and a few dozen plants known to exist in the Transjordan 2,000 years ago. But it makes no mention of tigers, or pandas. Elephant references are so vague, they may not be. There’s no reference to a woodpecker, no mention of sharks. There is no mention of citrus. No mention of tomatoes, or potatoes, or peppers or chocolate. There is no mention of most of the stuff that came from the Americas in the Columbian Exchange. Christians presume God knew about all of those things, but the authors of the scriptures clearly did not, nor did God tell them about them.

In the two Genesis stories, we are told God made animals, and that God had a role in creating all of them. Neither story names even all the major families. Other creation stories leave even those details out. In the creation story in Job, God wrestles with a great dragon — no Eden, no Adam, no Eve, no naming of animals, no mention of other animals at all.

Scriptures give us six or eight different creation stories, sometimes radically different. None of them hints at the how of creation. None really talks about speciation, nor genetic makeup, nor how the systems in the plants and animals work. Each story shares two things with the others: God is the motivating force behind creation, and God created out of love. You ignore that vital and happy message, and instead claim it’s a science text — but it gets the science all wrong.

Are you sure you know how scripture operates, let alone biology?

I have personally visited Jericho and seen the walls that fell and ate bananas from a roadside vendor. It was not rebuilt until the time of the Kings of Israel and at a personal loss to the builder:

“And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it” —Joshua 6:26

“In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun” —1 Kings 16:34

What you didn’t see was the lake that would still be covering Jericho, had we had a worldwide flood any time in the past 20,000 or 30,000 years. Your ears popped when you made the trip, because Jericho is the lowest city on Earth, about 800 feet below sea level.

Had there been a flood, there is not enough time for the water in that lake to have evaporated.

Was Jericho under water when you were there? No? There’s one disproof of a worldwide flood.

Christian and Jewish archaeologists have dated materials at Jericho for the various settlements there. It’s an oasis, essentially, and it has been for tens of thousands of years. So it’s natural humans in the area would settle near a source of fresh water. The oldest layers of Jericho’s settlements are about 15,000 years old. It’s been inhabited constantly since that first settlement, one city upon another — for 15,000 years.

Absent from all the layers left at Tel Jericho is any evidence of a flood — any flood, at any time. In human history, Jericho has never been flooded. It was occupied during all the times creationists claim a flood would have happened — but occupied dry, without 700 feet of water over it, without the torrents rushing down to the Dead Sea and eroding stuff away. This is a second disproof.

So, are you saying Joshua was there 15,000 years ago? Or are you denying the evidence God has left — again?

Daniel, I suspect you’re well meaning. You probably have never given much thought to the benefits we derive from our use of evolution every day. I don’t know what bug got to you that makes you think it’s a serious religious issue, about the world’s age and how living things got to be so diverse as we see them today — but that’s not a scriptural concern, and in Christian tradition, it’s not a concern.

So I get nervous when you tell me that God’s handiwork is wrong. I’m sure God has a good sense of humor about it — but at some point, the corrupting influence of creationism which makes you deny God’s work, deny science, and deny the stuff plainly before your eyes, will corrupt the way you look at things, and the way you perceive them.

Here is what I love about your responses. You care. You care enough to take the time to respond thoughtfully with really long responses. Honestly I wish I was more like you and cared enough about the people around me to give them well thought out responses as you have. I am making it my aim to do just that.

However… and you probably suspected that a “however” was coming… while I am not well studied in evolutionary biology, I don’t have to be to see some of the conflicts with the word of God – of which I am more well studied than the average person. I’ve read it many times and studied the Bible for the last 20 years or more. Of course we all have a worldview (the way we perceive everything) which also skews how we view and interpret Scripture. We need the guidance of the Holy Spirit to understand what he wrote.

If some supposed “evidence” contradicts the word of God – which Jesus and the apostles verified as absolutely trustworthy – than the evidence has been misinterpreted – likely by a worldview that has not been guided by the Holy Spirit or a proper understanding of the word of God.

It’s not about me being right. I don’t much care about that as I know I am often worng and in constant state of flux as I align myself to the truth. Jesus said He is truth. The important thing is that I know him and am in relationship to him. He knows what He is about and will fill me in along the way and teach me if I have ears to listen. That’s what’s important.

I also find that the issue of creation is important because it’s part of the Gospel. Jesus is introduced as the Creator at the outset of the Gospel of John. It is a prominent theme throughout the New Testament. Jesus himself affirms the trustworthy and inerrant nature of the word of God and I trust him. It’s as simple as that. And I am humbly trying to allow Jesus and the apostles teachings to shape my worldview.

You still seem to be ignoring or are unaware of biblical history which only accounts for hardly much more than 6000 years. Have you ever read through the whole Bible? So is it I or the Bible that has the hubris to claim some scholars wrong. Many other scholars agree with the word of God and see the evidence to fit perfectly with what the word of God reveals.

How do we figure out which parts of the Bible are the Word of God, and which parts are words about God?

Where did Jesus and the apostles vouch for scripture as “absolutely trustworthy,” when there was no Bible at the time? Are you Mormon, claiming Jesus came back to Joseph Smith to vouch for veracity of scripture?

First of all do we believe God when he reveals through Jeremiah that:
“The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?
“I the Lord search the heart
and examine the mind,
to reward each person according to their conduct,
according to what their deeds deserve.” (Jeremiah 17:9-10 NIV)

God is a witness that our hearts are trying to deceive us and sabotage us. And so, where do we find truth? What sources do we consult to discover whether we can trust the Bible as we have it? Is it all the Word of God, or does it simply contain it? Which parts can we trust?

This would make a great study. Where are you going to go to find the answers? Or were your questions rhetorical because you have already decided?

You make a a good point. It reminded me of the following Scriptures. The second of which you have shared earlier.

Psalm 19

A psalm of David.

1 The heavens proclaim the glory of God.
The skies display his craftsmanship.
2 Day after day they continue to speak;
night after night they make him known.
3 They speak without a sound or word;
their voice is never heard.
4 Yet their message has gone throughout the earth,
and their words to all the world.

Romans 1:

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.[i] 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

Evolution notes what God created — Christians believe, what God created with His own hand, still containing His fingerprints. Scripture contains some of God’s Word, but is the work of men, and filled with error (which is why Baptists and Mormons hold officially that the Bible is accurate “only so far as it has been correctly translated.”)

You assert, based on your reading of scriptures, that God erred. Odd position.

Geology has not been reshaped by one cataclysmic flood. Evidence does not support such a claim. Evidence we do have of cataclysmic floods — such as the multiple burstings of the ice dams that held the lake over Montana, or the bursting of the ice dam that blocked the drainage into the Niagara River, demonstrates what we should find all over the planet, had there been a massive flood.

I repeat, Jericho shows no evidence of having been flooded in in the past 15,000 years, since humans first moved there. That depression is so deep that, had it been flooded, Jericho would be underwater today, still.

Viewing geology through a lens that God was an incompetent creator and a teller of falsehoods might lead to creation — but you must falsify God’s Word in creation to hold creationism.

Why not limit God and say maybe him and science and evolution all had a part in our big wonderful earth. What if God spoke the words let it be from the mouth of Melchizedick and instead of it all happening in 6 days and then he rest (a day is a thousand and a thousand a day) it did take let’s say 7000 years to form. A piece of the sun brakes off and whirled around in space(big bang) freezing until it came to it resting place 3rd rock from the sun. All things being placed in it to come forth in its due time. As the sun melts it and life forms. Trees and plants come into being for oxygen and evolution begins. Then when God had found a man (Adam) who had evolved to the perfect man he seen his creation was ready to be made as God’s themselves to no good from evil and evolution stopped and men was no longer beast of the earth but a living soul. Some could say the butterfly got caught up in the transformation and that’s why they go through their change still today. And maybe he caused the flood to come to destroy the evaluated beast he had created saving only the ones that was actually from the loins of Adam.

My point is that everything came from God good or bad. The same emotion that makes you laugh makes you cry. If we evaluated it was in God’s plan before the word spoke it in existence. If the big bang happened it’s because God planned it that way. He knew the end from the beginning. The way some people say evolution works don’t make since. While we were evolving we would kill off the weaker link but they say we come from apes. How is that apes still exist if their theory is right? I really wasn’t trying to make a point just felt like writing my understanding of his word down to see what kind of response it got.:)